EOS-1D Mark III Why no 16mm sample images?

After looking at the specs for this camera I'm very impressed and I think
this is really going to be a winner for Canon. They show this body with the
new 16-35/2.8L attached to it, but there are no sample images posted with
anything wider than 35mm. I and many other people are very excited about
the announcement of this lens, but are disappointed that they don't show
images taken with it, especially on this new body. I would expect this lens
to do really well on the 1.3x crop. I hope Canon isn't running into any
design and manufacturing hurdles with this lens.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A7.HTM





Rita

 

Impressive...

 

: After looking at the specs for this camera I'm very impressed and I think
: this is really going to be a winner for Canon. They show this body with
the
: new 16-35/2.8L attached to it, but there are no sample images posted with
: anything wider than 35mm. I and many other people are very excited about
: the announcement of this lens, but are disappointed that they don't show
: images taken with it, especially on this new body. I would expect this
lens
: to do really well on the 1.3x crop. I hope Canon isn't running into any
: design and manufacturing hurdles with this lens.
:
: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A7.HTM
:
: Rita
:
------------------
There is are interesting issues of softness and noise in this and subsequent
images:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/FULLRES/E1DMK3IN_ISO0100_f28.HTM

Softness in a Portrait is not significant issue but when you introduce noise
AND softness, the image takes on a very degraded appearance. At lest with
film, the grain is known and is a stable issue. The digitals noise issue is
not anywhere near as predictable.

If you shoot under exposed in daylight to compensate for highlight burn out,
when you try to lift the shadows with (for example) Photoshop
shadow/highlight tool - although their are many others - the noise issue
becomes substantial in digital cameras. Often degrading an otherwise
printable (via enlarger) image to the point it becomes useless.

This is probably one area where film has it all over digital for
consistency... Even - it would seem, a $14000 AUD digital SLR from Canon.

Douglas

 

The camera was focussed on the pink flower...not the face.
As for noise...where?? Please be specific.

 

On Mar 7, 2:11 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net>

I'm with you, Mark² - this ranks right up there with D.M.'s silliest
posts.

 

I agree with Mark M. as well. It's clear the photographer was
focusing on the pink flower. Not only that, but the post above the
pic states this:
"NOTE: This image was shot with a preproduction prototype of the
camera in question. Image quality may not be representative of final
production models."
IMHO, dpreview gives the best unbiased review of any digital camera.
Helen

 

On Mar 7, 2:11 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net>

I'm with you, Mark² - this ranks right up there with D.M.'s silliest
posts.

Yeah... You getthese sort of replies from idiots with no ability.
Texture? Noise? which is it? Look at the picture.

Focusing a camer on an object in front of a subject is a "quick and dirty"
replacement for not having a DUTO filter on hand. It's a pretty normal
practice on the road. but this shot is intended to demonstrate the camera,
not a lens or a technique.

What it does is demonstrate the camera focus points were not used by the
tester to obtain the best evaluation. Either the tester was as ameturish as
Mark Thomas or didn't know enough about what he was doing to have done it.

 

I agree with Mark M. as well. It's clear the photographer was
focusing on the pink flower. Not only that, but the post above the
pic states this:
"NOTE: This image was shot with a preproduction prototype of the
camera in question. Image quality may not be representative of final
production models."
IMHO, dpreview gives the best unbiased review of any digital camera.
Helen
---------------------
This brings into question, the value of ANY tests of non production cameras.
If the image quality is not a true representation of what to expect and the
medium of display is visual... There is little or no point in posting photos
from the camera if they cannot be relied on to be representative of what to
expect.

I agree about DPreview up to the point of them relying on advertising and a
legal agreement about disclosure from camera makers. Dogs don't generally
bite the person who feeds them. So in that regard, DPreview are not entirely
unbiased.

as for the review in question? You might just as well post a picture from a
10D and say the same thing. "This is what the image might look like but it
may be better with the real thing and won't have a crop factor to it!
Ridiculous!

Douglas

 

Before you go making pronouncements about how "amateurish" anyone else
is...stop for a moment to acknowledge how utterly oblivious you were to what
was going on in the photo you presented as evidence of a major Canon flaw.
You completely blew it here, and yet you have the gall to continue
lecturing... I suggest that before you embarrass yourself any further, you
simply shut up long enough to see what others here EASILY identified.

And where is this "noise" you refer to?? This is a very clean image,
noise-wise. Do you know what noise is? I'm frankly beginning to wonder
whether you do...

 

Actually, Douglas, it brings into question whether you should be making
pronouncements about anything at all, since you utterly failed to understand
the basics of what was happening in this image. You based your ridiculous
pronouncement about the new Canon flagship body upon your absolute blindness
to focus selection and DOF issues.

 

Off topic..

You mean the sort of idiots who can't tell o-o-f from lens softness?
Yes, they are morons, alright Doug. Woops, that would be YOU.

All the rest of us *are* looking. Clearly this opinion is penned by
the same idiot who completely fails to show any evidence of same. You
again, Douglas.

We repeat, *where*, exactly, is the noise in that image??? Surely you
must be able to point to somewhere specific that shows it most
clearly?

Actually, it just occurred to me - Douglas has been caught before
looking at images while he has his browser set to 'shrink to fit'..
Perhaps he thinks the background wall texture is 'noise'... (O; Or
maybe it's a cheap LCD monitor? That might also explain why he thinks
his jpeg artefacts are unavoidable...

?????
You have *got* to be kidding. That is seriously funny. You honestly
suggest any decent photographer would defocus as a 'normal practice'
to achieve soft-focus? 'Quick and Dirty' is right, and it also shows
your expertise level.

Despite Doug's 'normal practice' comment, 'soft-focus' does NOT mean
out of focus. Soft focus portraits have a diffuse glow to them, but
high contrast details should remain sharp. Eg (overdone for
clarity!)..

http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.htm

Nowadays, with digital, it would be criminal to defocus in an attempt
to get a 'soft' portrait. And back in the good old days, it would be
just as criminal, as using a soft focus filter when *printing* would
give an immeasurably better effect. Out of focus just looks like out
of focus, except to people with no talent... (O;

By the way, why would Doug refer to a 'duto', instead of the usual
names, ie soft-focus, or diffuser? Does he think people might be
impressed by it? (For the record, a 'duto' filter is a particular
type of diffuser that is normally used to keep the centre of the image
sharp, or relatively sharp, compared to the outer edges. In this
case, a duto would *not* give the effect shown in his example, so it
was a poor choice by Doug.)

No, that is just your inexperienced interpretation. The sharpness of
the face was not being evaluated, if one goes by the surrounding
images and their settings...

How aptly misspelt - at least I can manage to type 'amateur', Mr
Pot...

And it's *such a pity* all your galleries are down, because there
would be lots more o-o-f images we could all point at. At the moment,
about the only related one you have is here (refer the bottom
image)...

http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/returnl.htm

...but that is obviously motion blur. I guess if you think that bottom
one is a keeper, it explains what sort of photographer would defocus
to get a nice soft portrait...

And I just love the 'dotty' copy protection in the top one, btw...
*that'll* stop all us image thieves in our tracks... (grin) But
what's all the extra crap down the right hand side? I think there is
something wrong with your framing methodology...

Keeping up the high standards, I see!


Lastly, for anyone interested in Doug's rapidly declining state of
mental health, he has put up this page as a good indication of his
paranoia.

http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/index.htm

Quite sad, really. Get help, Doug.

 

http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/lara_1.htm

What a gorgeous portrait Mark. Excellent work my friend!
Helen